Delhi High Court pulls up Prasar Bharati for using the word ‘Dish’

On 16th July 2019, the Delhi High Court (HC) restrained India’s largest public broadcasting agency, Prasar Bharati from infringing the trademark ‘Dish’ of Dish TV.

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw through an interim order revealed that it is unexpected of the public sector enterprise infringing the mark of another company, and hence, the defendant was restrained from using the word Dish of Dish TV India Ltd for its DTH (Direct to Home) service.

Expressing his disappointment, the judge came up with many points, such as:

He was dismayed on coming across such a case where a public service enterprise is indulged in Trademark Infringement.

More disappointing is that the defendant refused to act reasonably when the plaintiff objected and asked it to stop.

The Court continued saying that at least now the executives responsible for managing the business of Prasar Bharati will consider the matter and think; whether it is worthwhile to oppose the case or not. The defendant has three months to come up with a new name for its service.

Advocate Sandeep Sethi and Sudeep Singh were representing Dish TV. They filed the case for the permanent restraining of the defendant’s act of adopting any name, including DISH to offer its services.

Prasar Bharati, on the other hand, refuted all the charges by saying that DD Free Dish and Dish TV are not similar. Hence, there are no possibilities that its mark creates confusion. Besides, DISH is a generic word, which describes the equipment that functions on getting signals from a satellite. One noticeable thing is that Dish Antenna is the prime need of every DTH (Direct to Home) platform.

The Court continued that it doesn’t agree with the defendant’s argument and then proceeded by saying that undoubtedly, the “DD” word, which is associated with Doordarshan, shows a difference in the marks of the two companies. But, the same fact does not ensure that it cannot mislead the consumers. Using a mark similar (no doubt a little bit) to that of the plaintiff can leave the consumers or subscribers with many misconceptions. The customers may think that the plaintiff, in association with Doordarshan, is available with certain free channels. Such thoughts can then increase the customers’ desire for getting certain services for free, and thus upsurge the service providers’ concerns.

Ultimately, the Court said that the Trademark Law focuses on the prevention of such cases. Therefore, on finding possibilities of such happenings, it has to come to action to stop infringement. For more visit: https://www.kashishipr.com/